Create App Installation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), which is consistent. No behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed, so the description provides minimal added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, including endpoint and response info. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but there is minor redundancy with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description provides essential information like endpoint and success response. However, it does not explain the nested 'app_installation' object or clarify the relationship between project_id and company_id, which the schema suggests only one is required despite both being listed as required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description merely repeats the required parameter names without adding new semantics or usage context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates an app installation in Procore, mentions the HTTP 201 response, and provides the endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as there are many other create tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'Use this to create a new App Marketplace records' and lists required parameters, which implies usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.